Bradley and Bradley (No. 2)

In *Bradley and Bradley (No. 2)*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting and property orders made in previous proceedings. The proceedings involved a husband and wife, with an Independent Children's Lawyer appointed to represent the interests of their two young sons. The case came before the court following an application by the husband to discharge an existing order for the sale of a commercial property, and also addressed allegations of child abuse and interim parenting arrangements.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider the husband's application to discharge an interlocutory mandatory injunction requiring the sale of a commercial property, and whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify such a discharge. Secondly, the court needed to address allegations of sexual abuse of the children by a third party, Mr N, and determine the appropriate course of action, including whether to make orders under section 91B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) or to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of section 67Z of the Act. Thirdly, the court was asked to consider the wife's application to vary the interim parenting orders made by Bennett J, specifically concerning the timing of the children's return between households.

Regarding the allegations of abuse, Cronin J noted the mandatory nature of section 67Z of the *Family Law Act 1975*, which requires a party alleging child abuse to file a prescribed notice. Despite the wife's denial of the allegations, the court found the husband's sworn statement to be unequivocal and of sufficient concern to warrant compliance with section 67Z, ordering that the wife be restrained from bringing the children into contact with Mr N until further order. The court declined to make an order under section 91B, opting instead for the mandatory path prescribed by section 67Z. On the issue of the property sale, the court applied the principle that interlocutory injunctions should only be dissolved in exceptional circumstances, and found that the husband had not presented sufficient evidence of new facts or circumstances to justify discharging the injunction. The court therefore upheld the existing order for the sale of the property and, in the absence of agreement on the terms of sale, directed that a registrar would appoint an agent and determine the sale conditions, pursuant to Chapter 15 of the *Family Law Rules*. Finally, the court declined to vary the interim parenting orders, finding the wife's reasons to be more a matter of inconvenience than affecting the children's best interests, and noting the Independent Children's Lawyer's position did not support the variation. The court marked the report of the clinical psychologist as an exhibit and directed it remain on the court file.